get_canned_response_folders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List all' discloses a read-only, unfiltered operation, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether archived/inactive folders are included, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List all canned response folders.' It is concise with no wasted words and effectively conveys the core action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the existence of an output schema, and the clear distinction from sibling tools, the description is complete. It fully captures what the tool does without needing to describe return values, which are covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it correctly signals that no arguments are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies a clear resource ('canned response folders'), and specifies scope ('all'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_canned_responses_in_folder' and 'get_canned_response', which operate on individual responses or folders' contents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving the full set of canned response folders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide workflow guidance. No exclusions or context are given, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.